I don't think an anecdotal meta-analysis of sensationalist media as a method of identifying social trends will get you past peer review...

This creepy, Alpheus.

will be interesting to see what her sentencing is versus past male teachers who have done the same....

I mean equality right? That should go for the punishment of a crime as well.

will be interesting to see what her sentencing is versus past male teachers who have done the same....

I mean equality right? That should go for the punishment of a crime as well.

true, but we must keep in mind how the victim reacts / describes the crime.

Given the act was not totally without consent from the victim, the victim might "help" the perpetrators defense by telling the police about his/her consent with the act, or by simply not making any coherent sense in what he/she is telling the police.

Now inconsequentially if there is more "consent" (a difficult to use word in this constellation given the position of power a teacher holds and how easy to manipulate youngster of both sexes can be) involved on the victims side or not, the victim can change his/her position on that easely after the fact, given the police only interviews him/her several days after the arrest. Now that might also be prejudice, but I would bet society as a whole puts subtle pressure on female victims to lie about the consent because that is how we traditionally expect women to act in our society. "Women would never consent to such things... if they do, they are bad girls"... even further, women generally do not want to be seen as the active part in many things, because that is not how women should act according to tradition. Women fear being seen a unladylike, as tomboys when they show their strength. And not being a simple victim, but a complice of the act is certainly a more powerful position to be in in a relationship of any kind.

Boys on the other hand tend to be subtle pressured in the other direction... if not by society, then by their peers. "Well, boys cannot control their urges anyway"... and the more gullible "friends" of the youngster will most probably just make dirty jokes about it, not understanding the gravity of the situation. Men have an inherent fear to admit that they have not been an active part in a situation, not master of it at all times, the victim. Men fear to admit their weakness.

So in case of a male victim, they might feel more free to talk about their consent to the act to the police, or might even feel peer pressured into faking consent in cases where there was no consent.

On the flip side a female victim might feel pressured into not talking about her consent with the act.

So either way, there is some form of sexism involved... but it might not be the anti-male bias a lot of anti-feminists claim many courts to hold (which is true in some cases, but as usual is not as widespread as some loud protester make it look to be IMO).

As usual with sexism, the root of the whole thing is WAY more complicated than is useful for the activists, be they feminist or anti-feminists, and there is little point in bringing that up in an intelligent discussion of the topic unless you want to dive deep into the problems of our society with both gender, inequality and abuse of power.

The root might actually be sexism against BOTH genders because of the gender roles our society is pushing on us, especially the easely impressed youngsters.

Now, I am not excusing the acts, nor say there WAS consent involved, or that the teacher hasn't broken the codes of conducts. I am just saying that the fact men get more often severe senteces than women in these cases (who will certainly also loose their job and will never be able to work as a teacher anyway) might be down to other reasons than simple sexism.

true, but we must keep in mind how the victim reacts / describes the crime.

Nope.

In western common-law tradition, a crime is committed against the state. The court must only consider points of law in its deliberations. It is not legal to take into account the social status of the victim or accused except as it applies to the law. If a court does so, it's grounds for appeal either by the accused or the state.

I do understand that such biased jurisprudence does take place, that persecutors, defendants, and judges all choose whether to pursue appeals etc., and that the court of public opinion does not follow traditions of good jurisprudence. But if the law says the accused can not engage in consensual sexual activity if the victim is 18 or under, and that she must go to jail, then the court must find her guilty and apply the same penalty as anyone else committing the same crime. To discriminate because of sex of the parties involved is pure, simple, sexism. Nothing else but. In fact, it's the very definition of unjust and unadulterated simple discriminatory sexism.

Well, is it 18 in this parts of the US? Here in europe its 16 in most countries, sooooo... if I was wrong in my assessment, then put it down to me not knowing the exact laws in that part of the world.

At least where I live its completly legal for a 25 year old woman to have sex with a 17 year old boy. What COULD get her into legal trouble is a) if there was no consent involved on the side of the boy (but that also goes the other way, really), or b) if she is a teacher and has abused her position of power over the boy.

Now, if the latter is the case she will certainly loose her job and probably will have trouble working as a teacher in the country ever again. If it really will hold up in court as a case AFAIK would have to be decided on a case by case basis. There are codes of conduct you have to uphold as a teacher certainly, which is also why she will most probably loose her job. But I don't think its put down as a crime in some law.

Now, that is my parts of the woods. As said, I am not an expert on the US laws. So if this is so clear cut, where is the problem? The way you put it make it sound like the perpetrator will certainly be sentenced to jail. If that is not the case (like the original poster I was responding to was alluding to), then certainly the testimony of the victim will play a role in what sentence the perpetrator will get. After all, that is the exact role of the court and jurisdiction... to make sure the perpetrator gets sentenced on a case by case basis.

Which means all I have written still stands. If the testimony of the victim would not matter, why ask them for a testimony in the first place?

On 6/12/2017 at 5:56 PM, frob said:

2. Media explosion. Go back two decades or more and news events like that were briefly mentioned.  Depending on what was happening in the world, it may be the fourth or fifth story on television. In a local paper, perhaps it only appears once in a single news headline, maybe again when the trial happens. That headline is probably not on the front page, maybe back in the 'crime blotter' section.  Today with social media, global discussion boards, and every tiny website looking for news stories that attract eyeballs, stories that would never become widespread are now discussed broadly.

This. About 10-15 years ago, there was a sudden uptick in kidnappings in the U.S. It was frightening. Every day there was a news report of some child, always white*, having been abducted. People were terrified. After about six months of this, one single report focused on an African American mother who was quoted as saying, (paraphrasing)"My child was abducted and not a single news outlet covered it." Shortly after, a smart reporter bothered to look at the compiled FBI child abduction statistics for that time period and found - wait for it - no increase in abductions over the prior years! The only thing that increased were the media reports on abductions. Parents were tailing their children's school buses during this time; people were panicked.

The media has broad power in this day and age. Irresponsible reporting can cause mass panic, even and especially when the reports are pure hype.

* This was rather bizarre, but all the media reports were about the abductions of white children. This was never explained, nor was the sudden increase in reporting.